A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Hemodynamic Support With Impella 2.5 Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The PROTECT II Study

被引:670
作者
O'Neill, William W. [1 ]
Kleiman, Neal S. [2 ]
Moses, Jeffrey
Henriques, Jose P. S. [3 ]
Dixon, Simon [4 ]
Massaro, Joseph
Palacios, Igor [5 ]
Maini, Brijeshwar [6 ]
Mulukutla, Suresh [7 ]
Dzavik, Vladimir [8 ]
Popma, Jeffrey [9 ]
Douglas, Pamela S. [10 ]
Ohman, Magnus [11 ]
机构
[1] Univ Miami, Miami, FL USA
[2] Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vasc Ctr, Houston, TX USA
[3] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Beaumont Hosp, Royal Oak, MI USA
[5] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[6] Pinnacle Hlth Med Ctr, Wormleysburg, PA USA
[7] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[8] Toronto Gen Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada
[9] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Boston, MA USA
[10] Duke Clin Res Inst, Durham, NC USA
[11] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Durham, NC USA
关键词
heart-assist device; hemodynamics; Impella; 2.5; stents; ASSIST DEVICE;
D O I
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
100201 [内科学];
摘要
Background-Although coronary artery bypass grafting is generally preferred in symptomatic patients with severe, complex multivessel, or left main disease, some patients present with clinical features that make coronary artery bypass grafting clinically unattractive. Percutaneous coronary intervention with hemodynamic support may be feasible for these patients. Currently, there is no systematic comparative evaluation of hemodynamic support devices for this indication. Methods and Results-We randomly assigned 452 symptomatic patients with complex 3-vessel disease or unprotected left main coronary artery disease and severely depressed left ventricular function to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (n=226) or Impella 2.5 (n=226) support during nonemergent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was the 30-day incidence of major adverse events. A 90-day follow-up was required, as well, by protocol. Impella 2.5 provided superior hemodynamic support in comparison with IABP, with maximal decrease in cardiac power output from baseline of -0.04 +/- 0.24 W in comparison with -0.14 +/- 0.27 W for IABP (P=0.001). The primary end point (30-day major adverse events) was not statistically different between groups: 35.1% for Impella 2.5 versus 40.1% for IABP, P=0.227 in the intent-to-treat population and 34.3% versus 42.2%, P=0.092 in the per protocol population. At 90 days, a strong trend toward decreased major adverse events was observed in Impella 2.5-supported patients in comparison with IABP: 40.6% versus 49.3%, P=0.066 in the intent-to-treat population and 40.0% versus 51.0%, P=0.023 in the per protocol population, respectively. Conclusions-The 30-day incidence of major adverse events was not different for patients with IABP or Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support. However, trends for improved outcomes were observed for Impella 2.5-supported patients at 90 days.
引用
收藏
页码:1717 / +
页数:21
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]
American College of Cardiology, 2006, J Am Coll Cardiol, V48, pe1, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.05.021
[2]
A contemporary overview of percutaneous coronary interventions - The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) [J].
Anderson, HV ;
Shaw, RE ;
Brindis, RG ;
Hewitt, K ;
Krone, RJ ;
Block, PC ;
McKay, CR ;
Weintraub, WS .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2002, 39 (07) :1096-1103
[3]
Percutaneous left ventricular assist device: "TandemHeart" for high-risk coronary intervention [J].
Aragon, J ;
Lee, MS ;
Kar, S ;
Makkar, RR .
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2005, 65 (03) :346-352
[4]
Elective versus provisional intraaortic balloon pumping in unprotected left main stenting [J].
Briguori, Carlo ;
Airoldi, Flavio ;
Chieffo, Alaide ;
Montorfano, Matteo ;
Carlino, Mauro ;
Sangiorgi, Giuseppe Massimo ;
Morici, Nuccia ;
Michev, Iassen ;
Iakovou, Ioannis ;
Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe ;
Colombo, Antonio .
AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2006, 152 (03) :565-572
[5]
Role of cardiac power in heart failure [J].
Cotter, G ;
Williams, SG ;
Vered, Z ;
Tan, LB .
CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY, 2003, 18 (03) :215-222
[6]
Sample size recalculation using conditional power [J].
Denne, JS .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (17-18) :2645-2660
[7]
Dixon S, 2009, J DEV BEHAV PEDIATR, V30, P2
[8]
Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5 [J].
Henriques, JPS ;
Remmelink, M ;
Baan, J ;
van der Schaaf, RJ ;
Vis, MM ;
Koch, KT ;
Scholten, EW ;
de Mol, BAJM ;
Tijssen, JGP ;
Piek, JJ ;
de Winter, RJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2006, 97 (07) :990-992
[9]
Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock [J].
Hochman, JS ;
Sleeper, LA ;
Webb, JG ;
Sanborn, TA ;
White, HD ;
Talley, JD ;
Buller, CE ;
Jacobs, AK ;
Slater, JN ;
Col, J ;
McKinlay, SM ;
LeJemtel, TH .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 341 (09) :625-634
[10]
Successful Linking of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database to Social Security Data to Examine Survival After Cardiac Operations [J].
Jacobs, Jeffrey Phillip ;
Edwards, Fred H. ;
Shahian, David M. ;
Prager, Richard L. ;
Wright, Cameron D. ;
Puskas, John D. ;
Morales, David L. S. ;
Gammie, James S. ;
Sanchez, Juan A. ;
Haan, Constance K. ;
Badhwar, Vinay ;
George, Kristopher M. ;
O'Brien, Sean M. ;
Dokholyan, Rachel S. ;
Sheng, Shubin ;
Peterson, Eric D. ;
Shewan, Cynthia M. ;
Feehan, Kelly M. ;
Han, Jane M. ;
Jacobs, Marshall Lewis ;
Williams, William G. ;
Mayer, John E., Jr. ;
Chitwood, W. Randolph, Jr. ;
Murray, Gordon F. ;
Grover, Frederick L. .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2011, 92 (01) :32-39